Former Giant Barry Bonds was convicted in 2011 of obstruction of justice.

Photo: Noah Berger, Special To The Chronicle

Former Giant Barry Bonds was convicted in 2011 of obstruction of...

Image 2 of 16

Eric Valencia, left, and museum curator Curtis Huber reattach Barry Bonds' head after relocating the figure from a coveted main lobby location at the Wax Museum in San Francisco, Calif., on Wednesday, April 16, 2008.

Former Giants slugger Barry Bonds' booking photo shot at the Oakland federal courthouse on December 6, 2007 in Oakland, Calif.

Photo: U.S. Marshals Service, Courtesy To The Chronicle

Former Giants slugger Barry Bonds' booking photo shot at the...

Image 4 of 16

Barry Bonds buttons his jacket after arriving to enter a plea at the Federal building in San Francisco, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2009. Bonds' trial for perjury and obstruction of justice charges begins next month.

When Barry Bonds was introduced as the newest member of the Giants on a rainy December day 20 years ago, the 28-year old superstar was, even then, considered a Hall of Fame lock. Nothing he did in his first several years with the Giants changed that.

Most players evolve into Hall of Famers. Bonds is going the other way. Two decades later, he's no longer a lock. And even though I witnessed almost all of his stunning feats in a Giants uniform, I can't bring myself to vote for him.

I, too, like my colleague Bruce Jenkins, have to follow my instincts when I fill out my Baseball Hall of Fame ballot. And I've decided that, right now, I won't vote for players who willfully, systematically cheated the game and tainted not only their era but the entire baseball history book.

Believe me, checking the box next to Bonds' name would be an easier decision. I don't begrudge voters like Bruce who are certain they are doing the right thing. I know I'm creating my own headache and may be forced not to vote for anyone for a while because I don't know who used and who didn't. But when there's a preponderance of evidence, as there is with Bonds, who admitted to using though preposterously claimed he didn't know what he was taking, I can't simply ignore it. I can't just rubber-stamp Bonds and the other tainted players on the ballot: Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire among them.

What the rules say

I'm bothered by some of the arguments that the pro-Bonds voters have made as this chapter continues to unfurl.

The vote-'em-in gang resorts to name-calling, saying voters like me are being sanctimonious, moralistic, holier-than-thou.

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

I didn't write that. Those have been the instructions as long as I've been voting - more than a decade. Other voters may mock the character clause, but they're the ones choosing to ignore it, or parse it as they choose. If the ballot is modified and that clause is edited out, then we can have a different conversation.

They say that the Hall of Fame isn't a church and it's filled with bad guys, who supported segregation, threw spitballs, took greenies and were generally bad people.

All true. And I don't care if someone is a "bad" person - sports is full of bad people. But I didn't vote in the past. Am I beholden to follow the voting patterns of every past voter? I can't go back and change the minds of past voters on issues like the color line. All I can do is try to vote to the best of my ability on the ballot I'm given.

They say that by not voting for the PED-users I'm being judgmental.

Guess what? Every vote is a judgment call. That's why we're voting. If it was just a numbers game, we could feed the numbers into a computer and see who it spits out. Hit 762 home runs: You're in! But that's not how it works. People argue about baseball all day long: Just look at this year's AL MVP race. Every vote involves judgment of some sort.

They say I'm ignoring history.

But Cooperstown has a historical museum that explains the pivotal moments of the game. The Hall of Fame is the highest honor in the game, not just a history chart: If it were, Roger Maris and Curt Flood would be enshrined.

They say baseball is full of cheating, and baseball never banned steroids.

Forgive me for finding a difference between putting a file to a baseball or Vaseline in your glove and injecting a substance into your body that alters your physique in substantial ways. Yes, baseball didn't ban steroids, but they were illegal under the laws of the United States without a prescription. They were a shameful, hidden part of the game.

They say writers shouldn't be making the call.

I'm fine with that. If someone else wants to decide - a panel of existing Hall of Famers, for example - I'll happily give up my vote. From all indications, such a veterans' panel would choose to keep the steroid brigade out.

Writers' responsibility

But for now, we're the ones who are asked to vote on the Hall of Fame. When the steroid scandal broke, many blamed the media for not being more vigilant. But many of those same people want to vilify voters now for being careful. I find it impossible to have spent a decade writing about steroids' scourge on the game and then handing the game's highest honor to the perpetrators.

The vote-'em-in group says players like Bonds were Hall of Famers before they started using.

True, but to me that makes the superstar users even more questionable. One can almost understand a fringe athlete using desperate measures to hang on. But to be great and use steroids in a cynical pursuit of money, fame and other men's records is, from my vantage point, a violation.

The Hall of Fame is not a right, it's an honor. The highest honor in the game.

Just as my views about Bonds have changed over the past decade, they could change again over the next 15 years that his name remains on the ballot. While I'm not one to withhold my vote based on whether I think someone is a first-ballot Hall of Famer, a process I've always found inane, I am willing to keep my mind open as the years pass.

The steroid story, as we've learned in 2012, is not a closed chapter. It continues to play out and in 15 years, with baseball under a new commissioner and with the perspective of time, the story and its fallout may look different. I could change my mind and check the box next to Barry Bonds.

But I can't do it right now.

Chronicle columnists square off on baseball's biggest debate of the offseason

In early January, we will find out whether Barry Bonds has been voted into baseball's Hall of Fame. In the meantime, the debate rages among the baseball writers around the country who hold the former slugger's fate in their ballots. Two of those voting journalists - The Chronicle's Bruce Jenkins and Ann Killion - square off in today's editions to make the argument for and against Barry Bonds. He is the man with the most home runs in major-league history. And he's also the man with the most questions surrounding his achievements.